About your Search

20121202
20121210
STATION
CNNW 1
KGO (ABC) 1
KTVU (FOX) 1
MSNBC 1
MSNBCW 1
WBAL (NBC) 1
WBFF (FOX) 1
WJLA (ABC) 1
WRC (NBC) 1
WTTG 1
LANGUAGE
English 12
Search Results 0 to 11 of about 12 (some duplicates have been removed)
, with two big roundtables of elected officials and experts. let's begin with the lawmakers. senator tom coburn for the republicans and debbie stabenow for the democrats. and congressman hensarlingg. the president said that for there to be a big deal, tax rates on the wealthy are going to have to go up. if that's his bottom line, can there be a deal? >> again, as the speaker has said, unfortunately what we see out of the president is my way or the highway. one dollar revenue for 2.5 of spending reductions. now, after the election, it's a little bit of bait and switch. now he's asking for $1.6 trillion. and if you look closely, for every one dollar of tax increase there's about 20 cents of spending reductions. >> i'm talking about the rates. if the rates go up, can the republicans in the house accept the tax increase? >> no rep wants to vote for a rate tax increase. what that's going to do, is cause 700,000 americans to go from having paychecks to unemployment checks, because of what that's going to do to the economy, george, hardworking americans are going to see a 2% reduction in their
years answering the same question. but right after the election, we sent a plan to the president where we gave revenues but looking for spending cuts. and he took three weeks to come back to us. he has gone on still on the campaign trail, still working through. but you have to understand, republicans have not waited to solve this problem and sat back. in the summer, we passed a bill that froze the rates, and passed it. it sat in the senate. we believe we want to solve this problem. we think this is our moment. this is our time. >> is the moment -- does it come down to this, where you would say, look, we'll give you higher marginal tax rates if we get something significant on spending, medicare, in return? >> it doesn't solve the problem. if the president is asking for higher ratings, he is asking for more revenue. most economists agree the best way to get that is through closing special loopholes. and when you close those, it makes a fair tax process. so people invest on the return, not invest based upon what the irs says. >> senator durbin, the opening position, as i sort of gleaned i
a pretty dramatic shift since the election, and certainly i salute him for doing this, he actually is very engaged with the business community. and i'm not hearing the sort of things from top ceos and business leaders today that i heard the first four years. maybe -- maybe he's leaning in here and trying to rebuild a relationship with some of these people who supported him in '08. >> and i think it goes both ways. i think the business community views this deficit thing as the biggest problem that we can solve that we need to solve. there's something called a campaign to fix the debt, which i'm on the steering committee, 120 leading ceos from everything from general electric to jpmorgan on down. really committed to doing something and accepting the idea that revenues have to go up, not ideological about how, but most of all, wanting a big $4 trillion package. and so they have become, in effect, allies of the president. they're really trying to get to the same place. at some point there may be differences over how much entitlements, how much this or that, but right now their interests are al
. senator corker, given that president obama won the election, and seems to have most of the political leverage, what is the realistic deal to be made in the next 23 days? >> first of all, i think something will happen. i hope it is large enough for people like me that want to see entitlement reform to vote for. the president has leverage and the republicans have leverage with the debt ceiling and the c.r. which ends in march and hopefully cooler heads will prevail. there are different theories coming forth on how to deal with this and again, chris, it is a unique moment in history, where every developed country in the world, economists on both sides of the aisle, know the greatest threat to our country is fiscal solvency and we have a situation where the minority party is trying to leverage the president into doing something that is great for our nation and it is a very unique time and i hope the president soon will see the light. >> chris: senator schumer, three weeks left. what is the compromise and, this is the important part, that both sides can live with, on taxes, spending cuts,
elections taking place in japan on the 16th and south korea on the 19th of this month. well within the range of this test that is scheduled to come in the coming days. influencing their neighbors and influencing politics and testing new ground with what would a second-term approach be with obama. bill: this is what we believe to be the ultimate range. 5,000 to 6,000 kilometers. 3,700 miles. china to the west here. in japan well within range of north korea were to be successful in developing this launch mechanism. here is hawaii. that's outside the range of the 6,000 kilometers. the question then begs how realistic is it that north korea would be a threat to the united states? >> through pro live raig they could be a threat to the united states. and if they were to hit our allies in the near range. in the south and also japan. those are the near-term risks. but proliferation could occur at any time. they were able to reach to hawaii ... bill: history shows they are not very good at this. are they getting better? >> only more tests will tell. you are correct history has shown it's been embarra
. susan rice's appalling words when she put election politics ahead of stopping the again side in rwanda. before that tweet was deleted. a 2002 article claims rice said this. if we use the word again side and are seen as doing nothing, what will be the effect on the november congressional election? our foreign affairs reporter is out front tonight. elise, does the criticism against rice add up, do you think? >> i don't think 100%, soledad. susan rice was director for u.n. affairs at the national security council at the time of the again side, the rwanda again side. that office dealt more with the united nations than with africa, even though the united nations was dealing with the issue. at the time it was a working level staff position. her first in government, ambassador rice could make announcements at that level, but wouldn't be involved making an important decision getting involved militarily in rwanda. president clinton said he made the decision, it was the greatest mistake of his presidency, and ambassador rice travelled to rwanda after the again side. she said seeing the ground li
Search Results 0 to 11 of about 12 (some duplicates have been removed)